Did the Ford Focus also not have airbags, seatbelts, rearview mirrors, brake systems, child restraints, rear impact protection, or one of the other many minimal safety regulations all cars have to have? Because why is Obamacare forcing you to buy airbags when Jesus is your backseat driver? (As long as it's not Baby Jesus, of course, because then you would need the child restraints)

Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.

More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine. Link

UrukHaiGuyz:What's the over/under on how many years we have to wait before "Hands off my Obamacare!" placards at conservative rallies decrying the horrors of single-payer?

LOL. I don't know how long that will take but I will bet with anyone that the GOP presidential nominee will not campaign on a repeal of Obamacare in 2016. They will campaign on replacing/fixing/modifying it but not repealing it.

Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Soup4Bonnie:Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

People that couldn't access health insurance before might use it now that they have access. That was sort of the point of the legislation.

Technically, dying suddenly from a massive coronary is much more efficient than spending healthcare dollars and doctor hours on cholesterol/blood tests and lifestyle advice. At least as long as you don't get resuscitated.

The RIchest Man in Babylon:Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

Yes. Apparently the Conservative idea of insurance is that people should pay for it but never use it.

The RIchest Man in Babylon:Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

I'm certain Daniel Kessler consulted with the health departments in every other developed country in the world which have concluded the opposite of what he wrote. Specifically, that increasing regular visits and preventative care reduces overall health care costs.

The RIchest Man in Babylon:Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

The key word is "economist." Meaning, he didn't look at any real data. He made up numbers and assumed what people would do based on his fantasy world.

Since the article is stupid, I am instead going to talk about the car design metaphor as if it were the literal point of discussion.

A manual focus is a good deal, since you get almost the gas mileage savings of going hybrid but you get it cheaper. I wouldn't necessarily recommend the manual transmission over the electric hybrid for anything much heavier, though, since long-term the relatively minor mileage advantage of hybrid at higher weights will add up. But then, at the VERY heavy weights you're probably going to want better direct control of your gearage and the manual is the cheapest way to accomplish this.

The only really universal rule is fark the (non-hybrid/electric) automatic transmission, it's so mediocre that it's second-best at everything and ends up being worst overall.

FTFA: "...the president's rejection of "substandard" plans may result in eliminating the plans that are most efficient." ...Because patients bear a small fraction of the cost of treatment, they do not make efficient decisions on health care."

I stopped reading right there! Look bud, I do not have any control when I am in the hospital and they decide to charge me $9 for two Tylenol, then bill my insurance for it. I have zero control over that.

The car had a standard, stick shift transmission, roll-down windows and manual locks. My car was "substandard" compared to the almost all other autos in the White House lot, but it was a fine car that served me well.

That car did what you needed it to do, and it did what it was advertised to you as being able to do.

Oh, who am I kidding. You go on to spend the rest of the article arguing that good health insurance is bad for people because they use too much of it. Which can only lead me to believe that you think people with no health insurance are the healthiest people in the world.

Just as it would be a bad idea to require that all cars come with power windows, power locks, and automatic transmissions, it is also unwise to order citizens to buy health care that includes maternity benefits or other care.

Does anyone else find it rip-roaringly hilarious that the very same people that want to outlaw abortion also want to make it harder for women to afford to give birth to healthy children? Or maybe they reconcile those differences by thinking people only have sex for the express purpose of procreation and that every pregnancy can be planned out before the closing of the next enrollment period.

I am sorry, I reject the idea that most young people believe that they do not need insurance, or only need catastrophic insurance with high deductibles. Sure, they may be misinformed, or may lack the foresight to really comprehend what it is that they are saying "no thanks!" to.

They fail to take into account exactly how expensive something can be. I am so thankful that I had insurance this past June when I got horrible food poisoning and was hospitalized for 3 days. $9000 is the final bill. $9, farking G's!!! My out of pocket expense was a mere $150. There is no way I could have predicted my illness, nor could have I paid for it had I not had insurance.

The anti-ACA folk simply refuse to take stuff like this into account, it is disingenuous and shows weak arguments.

I am sorry, I reject the idea that most young people believe that they do not need insurance, or only need catastrophic insurance with high deductibles. Sure, they may be misinformed, or may lack the foresight to really comprehend what it is that they are saying "no thanks!" to.

They fail to take into account exactly how expensive something can be. I am so thankful that I had insurance this past June when I got horrible food poisoning and was hospitalized for 3 days. $9000 is the final bill. $9, farking G's!!! My out of pocket expense was a mere $150. There is no way I could have predicted my illness, nor could have I paid for it had I not had insurance.

The anti-ACA folk simply refuse to take stuff like this into account, it is disingenuous and shows weak arguments.

Well, my sister had a three cylinder Chevy Sprint, automatic. Thing was built like a tin can, but it got something like 50 miles to the gallon or some shiat. Anyway, one winter day we were driving around through snow-covered wheat fields, following behind this douchebag in a Black Camaro (cool!) who was poking around doing like, I don't know, 30 miles an hour or something.

Out of the corner of my eye (sitting in the passenger seat) I saw this greyish animal running through the snow. I just assumed it was someone's German shepherd or something, and I didn't think anything of it as it disappeared behind a snowbank. Suddenly a mule deer pops into view alongside the Camaro, making head-fakes as if it's going to cross in front of it, and then shying back, and then moving to cross, etc. After a beat, you can see the thought run through its head "Ah, hell! I can make it!".The deer zips out into the lane in front of the Camaro, which promptly nails it and the deer flies, spinning like a top, over the car and then lands on its neck in front of us, with trim pieces and the passenger mirror of the Camaro raining down around it.Miraculously, the deer then gets to its feet and runs across the road into the snowbank and off into the fields.

My point? Um. Obamacare is like that deer, or, no, like the Camaro. Anyway, when we got home we bought beer, so, yay!It was Stroh's light, so boo.

Holy fark... THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO DEBUNKED CBS LAST FARKING WEEK!!!

You know, the ones who showed JUST how farking "substandard" a "heathcare plan" can really be. Remember the woman who was paying $54/month, and getting $50 towards a doctor's visit, $15 off a 'script, and $50 towards a hospital visit IF it was due to "complications from pregnancy"? Yeah, FOX FARKING NEWS brought that to our attention, rebutting CBS.

And no, you don't need shiatty insurance to be more efficient, you retarded farking tool. I have awesome insurance, and the best part is that a non-essential ER visit is a $100 copay, but if you get admitted, the copay is $0. We also pay about $120/month for a family of 5, have $25 copays, $3 'scripts, my wife's entire pregnancy was covered, a 2 day hospital stay for me, on morphine and saline for the weekend, followed up by a visit to my primary care, and an MRI cost about $250.

So no, you don't need garbage insurance in order to be efficient, and the insurance companies can provide decent farking coverage and still make sick profits. Pun intended...

redqueenmeg:Unrelated, and NOT a metaphor, but I wish I could get a new car with roll-down windows now. Automatic ones just break all the damn time and cost a fortune to fix.

Some models still have them available. Jeep Wranglers (at least the ones that come out of the factory as soft tops) have them. Alas, when I bought mine last year I needed the hardtop (lots of tools and parts I didn't want stolen by any jackass with a pocket knife), and the only way I could get both was to pay an extra $500 to get a softtop converted.

What the arguement is, from an economics standpoint, is that when you have to pay less of the brunt of a set of procedures, you are less likely to care about what procedures are, or are not necessary. This American Life covered this a few years back on TWO separate shows. From their show:

"But that win-win-win in the human health care world, it creates big problems. Doctors feel free to order more tests, patients don't care because they're not paying the bill. Everyone is so busy winning the system wastes money."

"And insurance fundamentally, is a lousy way to pay for things. It separates people from the money they're spending. Which inevitably leads to us winding up with tests and drugs and procedures we don't really need, just to be safe."

This is what the economist meant....and they're right. For example, if a doctor checks you out and gives you 2 options, an X-ray or a CAT scan, and you only have to pay the same amount for each one, which are you going to go with? Probably the CAT scan. But, teh X-ray may be enough to tell the doc what is necessary, and its quite a bit cheaper.

Karac:redqueenmeg: Unrelated, and NOT a metaphor, but I wish I could get a new car with roll-down windows now. Automatic ones just break all the damn time and cost a fortune to fix.

Some models still have them available. Jeep Wranglers (at least the ones that come out of the factory as soft tops) have them. Alas, when I bought mine last year I needed the hardtop (lots of tools and parts I didn't want stolen by any jackass with a pocket knife), and the only way I could get both was to pay an extra $500 to get a softtop converted.

See? All this extra expense! I suppose an auto shop would probably be able to convert automatic windows to roll-down ones, though, right? That might end up being cheaper than the $400 apiece to fix them, plus a guarantee they'll just break again the next year.

Tman144:The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

The key word is "economist." Meaning, he didn't look at any real data. He made up numbers and assumed what people would do based on his fantasy world.

He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense, When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do, If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste, people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.

Edward P. Lazear, a Stanford Graduate School of Business professor and Hoover Institution fellow, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-2009.

Really?

Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers ... for an administration which pissed away a surplus from the prior office-holders, and during the years in which the economy started circling the drain and finally went completely down the shiatter. It's entirely possible, likely even, that this guy's previous job could have been better carried out by the monkey.

The RIchest Man in Babylon:Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

Ah so they have once again articulated that the GOP healthcare plan is, "Die quick if you get sick."

TheManMythLegend:Tman144: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

The key word is "economist." Meaning, he didn't look at any real data. He made up numbers and assumed what people would do based on his fantasy world.

He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense, When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do, If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste, people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.

Sorry, but "makes sense" is not proof that anything occurs in reality. It "makes sense" that the world is flat, or that an object in motion will tend towards rest.

TheManMythLegend:Tman144: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

The key word is "economist." Meaning, he didn't look at any real data. He made up numbers and assumed what people would do based on his fantasy world.

He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense, When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do, If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste, people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.

Here's the problem with that idea: if you happen to fall into the top 1% of spenders because you got cancer or were hit by a bus, you're going to fork over a TON of money. The top 1% of health care spenders top six figures in a year. How many people do you personally know that have $100,000 or more in liquid assets? My guess is for most of us on Fark, you can count that number on zero hands. Hell, I don't know very many people with even a tenth of that!

TheManMythLegend:Tman144: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

The key word is "economist." Meaning, he didn't look at any real data. He made up numbers and assumed what people would do based on his fantasy world.

He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense, When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do, If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste, people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.

That (and he) completely ignores the fact that a few $300 doctors visits are a lot cheaper than a $100k ER bill when you require acute care of something that preventative care could have prevented.

Additionally, how are you supposed to say "Holy Crap that was a waste" and demand more reasonable medical costs when you get hit by a meteor and require immediate care? You're treating healthcare (not insurance, actual care) like a commodity you can chose to go without (like a car). That's stupid.

TheManMythLegend:He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense, When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do, If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste, people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.

I'm going to choose whichever one fixes the problem I walked into my doctor's office for in the first place.

FTA: The greater problem is that incentives to use care only when appropriate are missing from most plans, especially the ones that meet the "standard" to which the president implicitly refers.

This guy's whole point is that if people have affordable health insurance, then they'll be encouraged to use the hell out of it - that if you make it so someone can afford to get sick without going bankrupt, why then the next thing you know that person will be taking baths in feces so he can spend all his time at the doctor's office!

My rebuttal to that argument: someone please tell me the last time they decided to take a day off work and go to a doctors office when they didn't need to. No one goes to the doctor because they're healthy as a horse - they go when they're sick or hurt or something is otherwise wrong. And here this guy is arguing that people getting medical help is a bad thing.

The RIchest Man in Babylon:TheManMythLegend: Tman144: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

The key word is "economist." Meaning, he didn't look at any real data. He made up numbers and assumed what people would do based on his fantasy world.

He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense, When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do, If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste, people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.

That (and he) completely ignores the fact that a few $300 doctors visits are a lot cheaper than a $100k ER bill when you require acute care of something that preventative care could have prevented.

Additionally, how are you supposed to say " ...

Just because something is an economic truth, doesn't change the fact that having insurance is still a damn good idea....When you don't have to pay the full cost for something, you will tend to not care what it costs. It's just human behavior. Now, you don't always have the choice (like emergency situations), nor do we have a proper functioning market where the consumer can make informed decisions.

Karac:My rebuttal to that argument: someone please tell me the last time they decided to take a day off work and go to a doctors office when they didn't need to. No one goes to the doctor because they're healthy as a horse - they go when they're sick or hurt or something is otherwise wrong. And here this guy is arguing that people getting medical help is a bad thing.

In some cases, getting "medical help" can be a bad thing. Health care really is overutilized in this country by many people. I highly recommend people check out the below book:

But as I said previously on this thread, just because many Americans overutilize health care does not exclude many American underutilizing it at the exact same time.

Karac:FTA: The greater problem is that incentives to use care only when appropriate are missing from most plans, especially the ones that meet the "standard" to which the president implicitly refers.

This guy's whole point is that if people have affordable health insurance, then they'll be encouraged to use the hell out of it - that if you make it so someone can afford to get sick without going bankrupt, why then the next thing you know that person will be taking baths in feces so he can spend all his time at the doctor's office!

My rebuttal to that argument: someone please tell me the last time they decided to take a day off work and go to a doctors office when they didn't need to. No one goes to the doctor because they're healthy as a horse - they go when they're sick or hurt or something is otherwise wrong. And here this guy is arguing that people getting medical help is a bad thing.

No....

Take prescriptions for instance. The drug companies have been rolling out prescription drug cards. So let's say you have the choice between a generic and a name-brand drug. The name-brand costs the insurance company $400 and the generic costs them $50. They try to save you money by letting you get the generic for $10, but they charge you $100 for the name-brand. The drug companies step in and give you a card for $90. Your out of pocket is still only $10, but now you are costing your insurance company an extra $350. The insurance companies could work to incentivize you to take the generic instead of the name brand.

Jim_Callahan:Since the article is stupid, I am instead going to talk about the car design metaphor as if it were the literal point of discussion.

A manual focus is a good deal, since you get almost the gas mileage savings of going hybrid but you get it cheaper. I wouldn't necessarily recommend the manual transmission over the electric hybrid for anything much heavier, though, since long-term the relatively minor mileage advantage of hybrid at higher weights will add up. But then, at the VERY heavy weights you're probably going to want better direct control of your gearage and the manual is the cheapest way to accomplish this.

The only really universal rule is fark the (non-hybrid/electric) automatic transmission, it's so mediocre that it's second-best at everything and ends up being worst overall.

If you're going to get a Focus, I suggest 2004 or later, unless you really enjoy replacing wheel bearings.

LedLawless:Jim_Callahan: Since the article is stupid, I am instead going to talk about the car design metaphor as if it were the literal point of discussion.

A manual focus is a good deal, since you get almost the gas mileage savings of going hybrid but you get it cheaper. I wouldn't necessarily recommend the manual transmission over the electric hybrid for anything much heavier, though, since long-term the relatively minor mileage advantage of hybrid at higher weights will add up. But then, at the VERY heavy weights you're probably going to want better direct control of your gearage and the manual is the cheapest way to accomplish this.

The only really universal rule is fark the (non-hybrid/electric) automatic transmission, it's so mediocre that it's second-best at everything and ends up being worst overall.

If you're going to get a Focus, I suggest 20042012 or later, unless you really enjoy replacing wheel bearings.

"First, the president's rejection of "substandard" plans may result in eliminating the plans that are most efficient.

The problem of rising health care costs in large part results from the usual problem that arises when there is cost sharing, in this case between consumer and insurance company.

Because patients bear a small fraction of the cost of treatment, they do not make efficient decisions on health care.

Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently."

This part describes the entire article for me... They feel we need to allow people to keep substandard plans because otherwise they might actually use their healthcare when they need it or even worse they might use it for preventive care and screening to help identify things like cancer early when its easier and cheaper to treat. Yep that would be a real tragedy if that happened. I just can't believe these were the same people complaining about fake "Death Panels" and "Healthcare Rationing" since the start of the law.. now all the sudden we're not encouraging people to ration their own healthcare.

kidgenius:TheManMythLegend: I don't see where the economist said low deductable plans were bad just that they lead to higher costs.

Since going on a high deductable plan a couple years ago we have negotiated and reduced quite a few bills. Moslty by arguing that certain tests were not needed or approved.

THIS.

That's all the argument the economist is trying to make. When you are on the hook for the bill, you tend to care.

We, as individuals, are part of the problem that healthcare costs are so high. Doctors, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies also have a hand in it as well.

Sure, you tend to care, but by how much? We don't know because this guy just made up random bullshiat to make a political point, not to engage in scientific inquiry.

Insurance companies are free to negotiate a high bill just as much as you are. Do individuals get better deals than insurance companies? I would think not. Putting individuals in charge of heathcare costs also tends to make people put off care they need until it's an emergency, costing way more than the care would have cost if they had done something about it earlier. Which of these trends is greater?

mrshowrules:Serious Black: In some cases, getting "medical help" can be a bad thing. Health care really is overutilized in this country by many people. I highly recommend people check out the below book:

There is a difference between everyone seeing their doctor once a year and patients with good insurance getting 6 tests when they only need 2.

Some other right wing kook teabag nutjob trying to say there is a 2nd Obamacare crisis coming...Dont' know who he is, but he must be some FOX NEWS lackey or something.

"Former VT Gov. Howard Dean appeared on Morning Joe earlier today and dropped a bombshell. Dean told the Obama faithful that there is another Obamacare crisis looming, even after the website gets fixed.It's not sticker shock as Americans find out that they will be paying more for their health insurance than they were paying before Obamacare.

The segment leads off with NBC's David Gregory offering the Obama administration's point of view: "The White House says that what's key to making this successful is to get the risk pools right."Dean countered, "David I know they say that. I've thought they were wrong from the beginning. This is the same consultants that put together Romneycare. They believe that."I don't believe it, and I don't believe it 'cause I've got 20 years of experience in making this work. So we can go into that another time. The bottom line though, is the next crisis here, assuming we get through all this, is the tax subsidies. Because it is gonna make the federal budget more expensive."

I just love how our per capita healthcare costs are 50% greater than the next highest country. According to the OECD, we had a per capita cost of $8,233 in 2010, while Norway came in #2 at $5,388. If we lowered our costs to match theirs, we would save $902 billion dollars per year. Nope, can't have that.

pslong009:I just love how our per capita healthcare costs are 50% greater than the next highest country. According to the OECD, we had a per capita cost of $8,233 in 2010, while Norway came in #2 at $5,388. If we lowered our costs to match theirs, we would save $902 billion dollars per year. Nope, can't have that.

Think of how many private planes and luxury yachts would go un-bought under such a horrid scheme!

keldaria:Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce high and excessive use of care.

Is there really an epidemic of hypochondriacs sitting in Dr's offices? I can think of about a 1000 things I'd rather do. It's time out of a busy day. It often involves lots of waiting, undressing, getting poked and prodded. I think there's enough disincentive to get medical care that we don't need a financial barrier too,

Tman144:Insurance companies are free to negotiate a high bill just as much as you are. Do individuals get better deals than insurance companies? I would think not. Putting individuals in charge of heathcare costs also tends to make people put off care they need until it's an emergency, costing way more than the care would have cost if they had done something about it earlier. Which of these trends is greater?

This is less about negotiating, and just not getting unnecessary procedures done. Again, maybe you only need one or two tests, but you want 6 to be triple-y sure that nothing is wrong. Maybe a generic prescription will do the same good as a name-brand, but you think the name-brand has something "special" in it. These are all things that we, as individuals, can do to help control costs. As Serious Black mentioned though, maybe we are only in the single-digits.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats:The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

Yes. Apparently the Conservative idea of insurance is that people should pay for it but never use it.

The politicians involved are owned by the insurance companies, and that is exactly what they want: you pay them but they never pay you. Massive profits.

The RIchest Man in Babylon:So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Sure, because you might die before you get any medical treatment, and then everyone who owns an insurance company wins.

Did this guy ever take his Ford Focus in for an oil change, get the tires rotated, get new tires when the old ones' treads wore out, get his clutch adjusted, replace brake pads, add anti-freeze, make sure his radiator was topped up? Preventative care is important to reducing long term costs.

red5ish:Did this guy ever take his Ford Focus in for an oil change, get the tires rotated, get new tires when the old ones' treads wore out, get his clutch adjusted, replace brake pads, add anti-freeze, make sure his radiator was topped up? Preventative care is important to reducing long term costs.

This

And the big difference between car care and health care is if your car bites the dust due to lack of preventative care, you either get another or take the bus. When it happens in health care to people with no or shiatty insurance, you die or mooch off others.

A new Gallup poll brings more 'not so good' terrible news for President Obama and his signature health plan, showing that only 22% of uninsured Americans intend to buy insurance Ford Focus through the ObamaCare exchanges.

kidgenius:TheManMythLegend: I don't see where the economist said low deductable plans were bad just that they lead to higher costs.

Since going on a high deductable plan a couple years ago we have negotiated and reduced quite a few bills. Moslty by arguing that certain tests were not needed or approved.

THIS.

That's all the argument the economist is trying to make. When you are on the hook for the bill, you tend to care.

We, as individuals, are part of the problem that healthcare costs are so high. Doctors, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies also have a hand in it as well.

This assumes two rational parties with full knowledge negotiating at a table without any undue pressure or burdens on one side (like, say, the pressure on the chest you feel when you're having a FARKING HEART ATTACK!). Sick people do not make rational negotiators.

netcentric:A new Gallup poll brings more 'not so good' terrible news for President Obama and his signature health plan, showing that only 22% of uninsured Americans intend to buy insurance Ford Focus through the ObamaCare exchanges.

Maybe that is the 22% that don't understand oil changes

that's why obama is gutting the insurance industry. he'll then have millions of people who have been purchasing insurance already. the ones who don't currently have insurance are the ones who aren't interested in it. he won't need them if the insurance purchasing public loses their plans.

This article is so stupid it makes you wonder how the author has managed to be a professor at Stanford. He must write this for some easy money knowing his audience of Fox News followers will mindlessly believe anything. And he gets paid to write this. As a former Ford pinto owner I know substandard. If anything, car purchasing is much like Obamacare. Those roll-down manual crank windows the author so longs for I don't believe are available nor have they been for years. The last 2 cars i purchased came with option packages that included many things I really did not want or need but I couldn't choose things like a radio that only tuned into AM stations that aired Rush Limbaugh. Plus, you just have to accept those damn safety features.

Petey4335:Pocket Ninja: I'd make the argument that a Ford Focus *with* a stick shift is a vast improvement on one without. As is the case in almost any automobile.

I think that was the least amount of text I have seen you post in years. Manual FTW

/REAL manuals with a clutch that is. Not the no clutch manual/automatic stupidity i'm starting to see lately.

Just got a 2013 outback that has that...thingy. from what I understand, the transmission is variable- she can't move like her sister, the 2006 sti sedan (probably the only car I'll ever own with a number)6 speed. She goes.But, her sister was purchased for reliability and mileage... also my husband with RArthritis has an easier time in the stop-go-stop-go of work traffic not having to shift and use both feet.

Which brings me to the point of commenting on this article...There are many docs out there that won't put you through a battery of vaguely related tests to get some cash. Especially if they outsource the tests. When they make no money, it changes perspective to a point, I think.

Also, we've been to the ER enough to know they are truly the ones that will do a bizillion things that turn out to be super expensive, etc. We try not to do the ER thing as much as possible- bringing me in for a nasty staph infection 3 other doctors said was a-ok (as it grew. Disgusting I know but I had 3 fist-sized infections that needed surgery to drain and treat.)My husband caught MRSA from the ER itself. They've been having trouble keeping it under control.

Anyway, TMI. But, as young 'uns with chronic diseases, we've always paid for fed bluexblueshield out the nose- however, we can make our own decisions on doctors,etc. Both the kid's stuff from maternity to hpv inoculations has been paid in full.We save about $3,000 a month using the mail-order-pharmacy options, no lie... it seems ridiculous that Humira at the local cvs costs nearly $1500 when it comes in the mail for $35 (now it's $50) and that includes their negotiated price for the meds! Without insurance the price triples.

So, with the rapidly rising costs for the plan, and the services and meds we need, we have really been squeezed- didn't see a nearly 20% rise in costs over the last few years coming.

And don't get me started on the barely exsistant dental coverage. Or the price of even basic dentistry. It's a rip-off. The only reason to even have dental on our plan is to keep the cost as low as possible thru the insurance negotiation.

So, monthly, our out-of-pocket expenses for just me and my husband and 2 kids equals a mortgage payment. It sure would be nice to have a little shack in the woods or on the beach somewhere.

TL:DR Middle class problems with health insurance.

/I'd gladly pay more taxes to counterbalance the windfall we'd receive were we covered with little to no out-of-pocket expense..because the government needs to tax higher to pay for everyone else.//health care should be a right. No I don't think the government should fix everything, but if electric and other basics are price-fixed or regulated by government intervention, health care certainly should be.

TheManMythLegend:Tman144: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

The key word is "economist." Meaning, he didn't look at any real data. He made up numbers and assumed what people would do based on his fantasy world.

He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense, When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do, If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste, people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.

If that argument holds, insurers would start offering plans that use an affordable level of coinsurance instead of a copay (or perhaps a bit of both) may very well turn up and outcompete copay-only plans. If your plan offered an 8% coinsurance instead of a $25 copay, you wouldn't necessarily care that the doctor's visit was $300 when you paid only $25 out of pocket, but when the full bill is $600 and you pay $50 out of pocket, you might well care about the extra $25.

The reason that isn't necessarily a good idea is that, medical care being a field requiring a lot of expert knowledge, most people cannot possibly be optimal consumers of health care on their own. To borrow and tweak someone's example upthread - if the patient paid a lot more for an MRI than an X-ray, how many patients would opt for the X-ray even if the doctor honestly thought the MRI was necessary? What you'd really need would be a system that provided financial incentives to doctors to provide more cost-efficient care, since it's doctors, not patients, that have the knowledge needed to make intelligent cost/benefit tradeoffs.

Mrtraveler01:PsiChick: I can only applaud the right wing. They've convinced people to actually want shiat sandwiches because they hate real food. That's amazing.

Yeah. I can't believe they got people to be all nostalgic about health care before Obamacare. People were getting screwed just as much as they were then as they are now.

I personally didn't have any issue with my plan but I'm still young and wanted to get insurance because I'm in the minority because I realize I'm not invincible and actually might need it some day.

My plan is getting changed but I'm going to take a wait and see approach before I call Obamacare a massive failure.

I have bipolar and Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. I tried to avoid diagnosis of the second, but you can't avoid diagnosis of the first. The ACA basically keeps me from getting utterly screwed over because I was born unlucky enough to have bipolar. I applaud that wholeheartedly.

BILL ELLIOT: I believe it was beyond the catastrophic previous condition.

the fark does that mean

I believe he's saying Obamacare forced his insurance provider to cancel his plan because he has a really bad pre-existing condition. Which is actually completely the opposite of what Obamacare actually does.

PsiChick:I can only applaud the right wing. They've convinced people to actually want shiat sandwiches because they hate real food. That's amazing.

There's a very old saying. A pig in a poke. You'd go to market to buy a little piglet. Someone heard you wanted to buy a piglet, and wouldn't you know it! They have one right here they were going to sell! They'd already have it in a sack (called a poke), tied up, ready to go. Too good to be true!

...only thing is: sometimes, in this unregulated town market, you weren't getting a pig. Sometimes, you'd get that wriggling sack all the way home...

...and you'd uncover an awful truth. You'd let the cat out of the bag.

You were led to believe what you had was what you needed. You were lied to. You were made to be a patsy, a fool, and there's nothing you can do about it now.

Here's where things get retarded. In this new version of people being sold useless bundles disguised as something they actually want, there are people out there that are defending the people passing alley cats off as piglets.

TheManMythLegend:Heres what co-pays or do, If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

At least when you're deciding between the Mercedes and the Toyota, you've been informed that the cost is going to be $10,000. Just try to find out how much that perfect little black gall bladder surgery that you've got your eye on is going to cost, all in. Beforehand. You know, so you can make an "efficient decision".

Jim_Callahan:Since the article is stupid, I am instead going to talk about the car design metaphor as if it were the literal point of discussion.

A manual focus is a good deal, since you get almost the gas mileage savings of going hybrid but you get it cheaper. I wouldn't necessarily recommend the manual transmission over the electric hybrid for anything much heavier, though, since long-term the relatively minor mileage advantage of hybrid at higher weights will add up. But then, at the VERY heavy weights you're probably going to want better direct control of your gearage and the manual is the cheapest way to accomplish this.

The only really universal rule is fark the (non-hybrid/electric) automatic transmission, it's so mediocre that it's second-best at everything and ends up being worst overall.

I think this is the greatest wisdom likely to be found in this thread and endorse it wholeheartedly.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats:The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

Yes. Apparently the Conservative idea of insurance is that people should pay for it but never use it.

So they support the First Lady's nutrition goals? And an increase in the cigarette/alcohol taxes as well as serious restrictions on motorcycle and firearm ownership? And expanded contraceptive use with publicly funded vaccines to help eliminate preventable deaths, especially in infants and the elderly?

If your children are grown and you dont plan any more, why should you have to pay for maternity coverage? Why is it the job of society to subsidize someone's choice to have a child?

I only drive 7 miles on the Interstate. Why should I have to subsidize everyone else?I don't have any kids. Why do I have to pay for schools?

Good highways benefit all, regardless the amount of time you spend on it. Without the highways, the food you buy may be more expensive, and the traffic cutting through your neighborhood may increase.You're paying it forward- not unlike somebody else had to do while you attended school.

And that's just a straight road on the ground. Throw bridges in there, it's more. Exit and entry ramps (unless you magically appear on the interstate) is more. Resurfacing would cost around $250,000 per mile, to make sure it's not a pot-hole minefield.... and that cost estimate is for 22' wide streets, so multiply as appropriate. And make sure you include the other roads you're using.

And that's just for your road you're using. Are you telling me, honestly, that you've paid millions of dollars in taxes just for the roads you use? Never mind the whole infrastructure of society that ensures you have GPS use if you have the equipment, no roaming groups of bandits picking off motorists and taking them hostage, and so on?

If your children are grown and you dont plan any more, why should you have to pay for maternity coverage? Why is it the job of society to subsidize someone's choice to have a child?

Probably for the same reason that some 25 year old woman trying to get pregnant has to subsidize that dude's prostate. Because that's the way insurance, and society in general work - everybody suffers a little bit through taxation to provide benefits for everyone. Benefits that almost everyone wouldn't be able to afford if they tried to get them privately.

Also, it's entirely likely he's not paying for maternity. How would you tell the difference between him being charged for one of these two options:-$10 a month to cover problems arising from his balls, shaft & prostate along PLUS $10 for problems arising from his vagina, uterus & thathcers-$20 a month for any genital-related issues, pick and choose organs as appropriate

How much will it cost the pool to provide him with maternity coverage? Zero dollars!

And your wife now is covered for testicular cancer, penile cancer, premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, liver disease, prostrate cancer, type I diabetes, hemophilia, and many other diseases that are only developed in men or primarily in men.

There are many diseases that are moreprevalent with one sex or the other, some diseases are moreprevalent based on race, like sickle cell.

The point of thelegislation was to make premiums the same no matter your sex or race or ethnicity or prior disposition to disease or any otherhereditary factors. Women don't get pregnant without a man and thus the burden of the cost of their pregnancies can be spread out to men.

If your children are grown and you dont plan any more, why should you have to pay for maternity coverage? Why is it the job of society to subsidize someone's choice to have a child?

I only drive 7 miles on the Interstate. Why should I have to subsidize everyone else?I don't have any kids. Why do I have to pay for schools?

Good highways benefit all, regardless the amount of time you spend on it. Without the highways, the food you buy may be more expensive, and the traffic cutting through your neighborhood may increase.You're paying it forward- not unlike somebody else had to do while you attended school.

If your children are grown and you dont plan any more, why should you have to pay for maternity coverage? Why is it the job of society to subsidize someone's choice to have a child?

I only drive 7 miles on the Interstate. Why should I have to subsidize everyone else?I don't have any kids. Why do I have to pay for schools?

Using 1996 numbers, one mile of Interstate costs $1 million to build.

And that's just a straight road on the ground. Throw bridges in there, it's more. Exit and entry ramps (unless you magically appear on the interstate) is more. Resurfacing would cost around $250,000 per mile, to make sure it's not a pot-hole minefield.... and that cost estimate is for 22' wide streets, so multiply as appropriate. And make sure you include the other roads you're using.

And that's just for your road you're using. Are you telling me, honestly, that you've paid millions of dollars in taxes just for the roads you use? Never mind the whole infrastructure of society that ensures you have GPS use if you have the equipment, no roaming groups of bandits picking off motorists and taking them hostage, and so on?

My response to any Farker that claims they have, really, s'truth...

Good FSM people.Read the full post and who is quoted before ripping into someone.Taxes are what we pay for civilization.

Karac:redqueenmeg: Unrelated, and NOT a metaphor, but I wish I could get a new car with roll-down windows now. Automatic ones just break all the damn time and cost a fortune to fix.

Some models still have them available. Jeep Wranglers (at least the ones that come out of the factory as soft tops) have them. Alas, when I bought mine last year I needed the hardtop (lots of tools and parts I didn't want stolen by any jackass with a pocket knife), and the only way I could get both was to pay an extra $500 to get a softtop converted.

Witty_Retort:clowncar on fire: Witty_Retort: o5iiawah: 12349876: B) He has a child

If your children are grown and you dont plan any more, why should you have to pay for maternity coverage? Why is it the job of society to subsidize someone's choice to have a child?

I only drive 7 miles on the Interstate. Why should I have to subsidize everyone else?I don't have any kids. Why do I have to pay for schools?

Good highways benefit all, regardless the amount of time you spend on it. Without the highways, the food you buy may be more expensive, and the traffic cutting through your neighborhood may increase.You're paying it forward- not unlike somebody else had to do while you attended school.

Jackpot777: Witty_Retort: o5iiawah: 12349876: B) He has a child

If your children are grown and you dont plan any more, why should you have to pay for maternity coverage? Why is it the job of society to subsidize someone's choice to have a child?

I only drive 7 miles on the Interstate. Why should I have to subsidize everyone else?I don't have any kids. Why do I have to pay for schools?

Using 1996 numbers, one mile of Interstate costs $1 million to build.

And that's just a straight road on the ground. Throw bridges in there, it's more. Exit and entry ramps (unless you magically appear on the interstate) is more. Resurfacing would cost around $250,000 per mile, to make sure it's not a pot-hole minefield.... and that cost estimate is for 22' wide streets, so multiply as appropriate. And make sure you include the other roads you're using.

And that's just for your road you're using. Are you telling me, honestly, that you've paid millions of dollars in taxes just for the roads you use? Never mind the whole infrastructure of society that ensures you have GPS use if you have the equipment, no roaming groups of bandits picking off motorists and taking them hostage, and so on?

My response to any Farker that claims they have, really, s'truth...

Good FSM people.Read the full post and who is quo ...

Stop asking rhetorical questions on Fark. We don't handle them here. They're like Canadian quarters.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats:Apparently the Conservative idea of insurance is that people should pay for it but never use it.

That's the fundamental point of ALL insurance throughout history. The more you use it, the higher the rates go, and most P&C insurers have a rule that people with too many claims get dropped.

I was selling home insurance in the years right after Katrina, and the companies I was with had strict rules that absolutely no new policies could be issued in Florida and most of Louisiana because there was too much likelihood that the claims would far exceed the premiums. When the restriction on Florida was finally lifted, the policies that got issued were all costing like ten thousand a year. Insurance companies are required by law to keep enough liquid cash in their accounts to pay out a claim on every single active policy on their books if something crazy happens.

kidgenius:What the arguement is, from an economics standpoint, is that when you have to pay less of the brunt of a set of procedures, you are less likely to care about what procedures are, or are not necessary. This American Life covered this a few years back on TWO separate shows. From their show:

"But that win-win-win in the human health care world, it creates big problems. Doctors feel free to order more tests, patients don't care because they're not paying the bill. Everyone is so busy winning the system wastes money."

"And insurance fundamentally, is a lousy way to pay for things. It separates people from the money they're spending. Which inevitably leads to us winding up with tests and drugs and procedures we don't really need, just to be safe."

This is what the economist meant....and they're right. For example, if a doctor checks you out and gives you 2 options, an X-ray or a CAT scan, and you only have to pay the same amount for each one, which are you going to go with? Probably the CAT scan. But, teh X-ray may be enough to tell the doc what is necessary, and its quite a bit cheaper.

Why would the doctor ask me if I should have an xray our a cat scan? That would be pretty stupid since I'm not a doctor.

Wouldn't that be like a mechanic asking his customer which scan too he should use to pull the error codes on his Ford Focus?

Karac:Just as it would be a bad idea to require that all cars come with power windows, power locks, and automatic transmissions, it is also unwise to order citizens to buy health care that includes maternity benefits or other care.

Does anyone else find it rip-roaringly hilarious that the very same people that want to outlaw abortion also want to make it harder for women to afford to give birth to healthy children? Or maybe they reconcile those differences by thinking people only have sex for the express purpose of procreation and that every pregnancy can be planned out before the closing of the next enrollment period.

Yes but apparently some are still pro-choice. They just want to wait until its sinned first. This guy advocates for the death penalty for rebellious children.